Talk:USS Voyager/archive
2378? As I have commented elsewhere, I have noticed that is is accepted that Voyager returned home in 2377. Where is this mentioned - as in Homestead, Neelix commented that they were celibrating the 315th anniversary of First Contact - wouldn't that place the year as 2378? : This seems consistant with the Star Trek website. They seem to imply that Endgame crosed into 2378. :Voyager's Season 1 was in [2371. Add seven years to that (seven seasons), and you get 2378 indeed. You reference to the 315th birthday of First Contact is good evidence. Ottens 12:59, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::Surely it goes like this (remembering that four season two episodes were produced for season one and have season one Stardates, they aired correctly in the UK) - Season 1 - mid-2371, Season 2 - 2372, Season 3 - 2373, Season 4 - 2374, Season 5 - 2375, Season 6 - 2376, Season 7 - 2377. Voyager still follows the TNG/DS9 convention of having the second digit in the stardate increase by 1 every year, and the stardate for Endgame was 54973.4, which is a 2374 Stardate. Alex Peckover 13:07, Jul 6, 2004 (CEST) :: 2377 stardate actually but I see what you mean. Of course it's possible that the events of Endgame cross over into the 55000 stardates, thereby starting another year. The fact that the anniversary is mentioned in Homestead is difficult but perhaps not impossible to rectify. :::Or that Series 1 was 2371-2372, S2 was 2372-2373...S7 would be 2377-2378. And the idea that the digits changed every season doesn't necessarily mean the year changes every year at that point, we should all know that stardates aren't consistant! MiChaos 22:26, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::::I always got the impression that Endgame was several months after Renaissance Man. It would be possible then, that the episode was in 2078. :Now that seems somewhat unlikely. :P Ottens 20:13, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::I assume (s)he means 2378. I agree with MiChaos - weebiloobil 16:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Stardate Year Well, according to the VOY Season 1 DVD extras, they specify the year as 2377 for Season 1. Not sure how that fits with the canon course, but if you load in the extras disk and look at the Janeway Interview, you'll note the interview date (97), and then a year scroll to 2377 for Season 1. Which if true, means the stardate years are 2377 to 2383. DCody 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :It does not work on so many levels. By 2377, there was no Maquis to speak of, they had long since been killed or destroyed by the Jem'Hadar. The uniforms seen in Voyager had been retired pretty much by 2373. We see an Admiral Kathryn Janeway back at Starfleet in 2379. I'm sure there are many more problems, but those are some glaring ones. The DVD extras either say something different, or are flat wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) novelization information Separate question: The novelisation and script of Caretaker refer to the deceased doctor as Fitzgerald. Should this be taken as canon and referenced in the crew roster? :Please state your name for the reccord. ;) No, I don't think that's really canon. Even the novelization of The Motion Picture (written by Roddenberry himself, how more canon do you want it?) isn't regarded as "canon". Ottens 17:25, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::I'd be inclined to recognize a source by Roddenberry, however. But the Caretaker novelization was done early in the series, by a writer not associated with Paramount, working for a licensed source (Pocket Books)). This means that it is not acceptable canon (expecially since there is evidence in the "Imperfection" casualty list that the doctor and engineer might have different names. However, information like that can still be collected, and referenced in a clearly marked "Background" section. It is presented in this way as necessitated by the site canon policy -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:06, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::(If you put four tildes (~~~~) after your message, it will leave your username or address, so that we can properly respond to you) Voyager's route home? This article might be a good home for a geographical survey of the Delta Quadrant and Voyager's route through it, as discussed here. It wouldn't need every planet visited, but a list of the major areas might be useful. -- Josiah Rowe 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT) :I think Regions visited by Voyager might be a decent idea for an article. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 11:49, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC) Background Information Shouldn't the information from USS Voyager prototype be moved here and the page deleted? It's all background info and doesn't exist in canon Trek! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 12:00, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC) :I think it falls under background information -- if we are creting pages for other facets of the craft (directors, performers, composers -- then we should start with some info on costumes, sets, props and models -- the prototype page is waiting some more sibling articles about the other models built for the series, and a top level page to list all of the above. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:04, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::I don't agree with the creation of these "prototype" articles. I think there's a big difference between people that have lives outside of Trek and models that were built specifically for Trek. For instance, the Voyager prototype is much more related to Voyager, it was built purposefully for that reason and no other, than Jeffrey Combs is related to Shran, he only played the Andorian and has other functions, both in Trek and outside. Prototype information can easily be displayed on starship articles, but where does information about a director, actor or composer go if they have appeared several times in Trek? ::Obviously, the option that will give most space is if we create behind-the-scenes personnel pages and use the relevant starship pages for "prototype" info. ::Also, is there a third option? Is it possible that we could do both - create new pages for prototypes but also display the information on the relevant starship pages. ::I realize my response may be seen as a "personal attack" (just about anything can be seen as that, these days!) but I'm only trying to help find the best solution for MA. I hope other Archivists realise this. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 14:36, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC) Crew Complement Ah, the red shirts just keep appearing. While it gives the exact numbers given on two separate dates, In my opinion I think it should say "~150" or approximately 150 some how. Cause the idea of Voyager''s crew was always 150, they always mentioned it. But when ever they needed an exact number, it'd vary (147, 141, 153) And they were always different, rarely actually accounting for red shirt deaths. Well, I suggest 150. Any disagreements? - AJHalliwell 11:12, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC) :I've got no problems with "c. 150" or "~150", because the number did fluctuate quite a bit. In fact, it changed so often that a website cropped up to keep track of it, which. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 08:07, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC) We come in peace (shoot to kill, men) Where is it stated that ''Voyager made first contact with some 400 species? That number seems like a bit of a stretch. I know since the Delta Quadrant was unexplored territory that there were likely to be many first contacts, but 400? I dunno about that... --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC) Speculation I removed the following: :It is a possibility that Starfleet succeded to perfect the travel at quantum slipstream speeds, and they we're probably very interested in Voyager's armor technology, because they needed it to perfect their resistance to the Borg. It is a possibility that this armor will be upgraded onto newer ships in the sake of defense. This is idle speculation that could be added as background info, but since there is no such evidence in subsequent Star Trek projects (namely, Star Trek: Nemesis) to suggest how the technology was used following Voyager's return, it seems unnecessary to me. However, it's here if anyone wishes to discuss it. --From Andoria with Love 03:16, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC) More specifics There can be more added to this article (e.g. schematics, in the Delta Quadrent). If USS Enterprise D article is as big as it is, why can't Voyager be? They explored a totally different region than the Enterprise. --Galaxy001 05:44, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *Go right ahead. Jaz 05:59, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) Casino? Voyager had a casino on deck 2? I'd be interested in the reference for that. :It did not. Jaz talk | novels 04:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ::Then why is it listed? MrPsychic 05:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::Its non-cannon. Probably speculation. If non-cannon, it can be gotton rid of (if it already has not). :) Galaxy001talk 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC) EMH an enlisted? An edit was just made moving the Docter from the enlisted to the officers because he is Chief Medical Officer. The reason given was that he cannot be an officer and enlisted at the same time. I disagree with this, well, not so much disagree with it as feel it is flawed. His position was Chief Medical Officer. Whether he is enlisted or not is a matter of rank, not position. For example, I used to be a cadet in something called Civil Air Patrol, the Auxiliary of the US Air Force. We follow a military rank and position structure. When I was a Cadet Senior Airmen (an enlisted rank), I was made the Cadet Aerospace Education Officer (a position). I feel we are dealing with the same thing when it comes to the EMH. His rank may have been an enlisted level, while his position was Chief Medical Officer. Granted, the Civil Air Patrol is a civilian organization, and may not follow the military practice to the full letter, but Starfleet is not the current military either, so I think the comparison is valid. I will revert the change tomorrow, unless someone objects. --OuroborosCobra 07:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC) :I think you are right. The EMH did not hold an officers' rank, and thus should be under Enlisted personnel. Ottens 11:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC) landing :... ''Voyager also had the capibility of landing on the surface of a Class-M planet, then returning to space. The USS Voyager was the first starship capible of doing so. ::Idle speculation or was this mentioned in an episode? -- Captain M.K.B. 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC) :This ability was demonstrated in VOY: "The 37's". During an interview I once saw about the making of Voyager, I'm not sure exactly where anymore, they (several staff members) spoke about how they wanted to have the ship consistently land on planet's surfaces, but opted for use of the transporters due to the visual effects techniques and budget costs. They then stated that, when the show was actually in production and airing, it would be occasionally feasible due to an improved budget and increase visual effects techniques. During that discussion, one person had stated that this was the first ship in Star Trek history capable of doing this. So you could say the producers can confirm this ability.--Gravydude 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ::The note about its place in Star Trek history is misplaced then... the article should be written from the of the Star Trek universe, where no known ship has been able to land. A note could be placed in the background section, where we talk about Star Trek 's history, as opposed to the Federation's. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC) :::We still do not know if it was the first starship capable of landing on a planet's surface; we know there are at least 2 other Intrepid class starships, and we can assume all Intrepid class starships could land (why would Voyager be any different?). An interview/documentary is not considered canon! - weebiloobil 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC) ::::For all we know, there could have been a dozen other designs that could land in the 23rd and early 24th centuries -- the fact about Voyager is that is the first ship to have its own series that could land. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Tom Paris I just want to make sure that I am accurate in my assumption before making any changes, but isn't Tom Paris a Lieutenant and not a Lieutenant Junior Grade. In Caretaker, Janeway grants a field promotion to Lieutenant, and his pips on the collar indicate that rank. I ask this because if you read from StarTrek.com, they indicate that he holds the rank Lieutenant until he is reprimanded and reduced to Ensign. The following link goes to startrek.com and describes Tom Paris as a Lieutenant. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/VOY/character/1112412.html Thank you for helping me double check this..... :Actually, as you can see in these images, he wears the grade of Lt. J.G. This is a similar problem as Lt. Commander Chakotay. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC) But if you watch in the first season episodes, he wears the rank of Lieutent not Lieutenant J.G. --Brad 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ::Not exactly the best choice of pictures... as the image of Paris shows him as an "Ensign" (on another note, that image is wrong, it's from 2376) before his promotion in "Unimatrix Zero, Part I," and he wore standard Rank pips, not a maquis bar. - AJ Halliwell 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :::Blaah, finally found a pic of his pips. (On the brightside, we finally found someone whose headshots are always facing left :P) For the first five years he was a full lieutenant (seen here in Ex Post Facto) and was demoted to Ensign in "Thirty Days." He was then promoted to Lieutenant junior grade a year later in "Unimatrix Zero, Part I" and spent the last year as a Lt. jg (seen here in "Drive"). - AJ Halliwell 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :Oh well, I thought the picture looked a little funny. I just thought it was an odd angle. Thanks anyways for answering the question. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Sidebar Old sidebar moved here. Some information might need to be re-included, eventually cited if it hasn't already. Also see Template talk:Sidebar starship. -- Cid Highwind 15:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)